[EL] Accepting the results of the election

[Jerald Lentini]

Benjamin -

Two questions:

1. Your punctuation is generally excellent, so why are you putting
RuthAlice's name in quotation marks? I assume there's a civil and
reasonable explanation for that, and I'm curious what that might be.

2. Since you're implying that contract employees trying to shirk work
<http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Pierce-County-to-pull-230-names-off-voter-list-1263443.php>,
including one turned in by ACORN itself
<http://archive.jsonline.com/news/crime/64013102.html>, prove that ACORN as
a whole was nefarious and corrupt, what should we infer about an
organization whose founder and several employees were arrested and
convicted for illegally trying to infiltrate a U.S. Senator's office
<https://web.archive.org/web/20100330211616/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no012610.htm>
to
access her phone system?

Hope this message finds you well,
Jerald


On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear "RuthAlice,"
>
> Would you be talking about Latoya Lewis of ACORN who pled guilty for voter
> registration fraud because she was "trying to meet her quota"?
>
> Or would you be talking about the investigation that led to five
> Washington ACORN employees going to jail?
>
> Or perhaps you're talking about the Ohio indictment of four ACORN
> employees for submitting false voter registration forms?
>
> Or the ACORN we discovered was happy and tolerant of a dozen underage
> prostitutes?
>
> Is this the ACORN you're championing?
>
> Funny stuff, "RuthAlice."
>
> Forward,
>
> Benjamin Barr
> Counsel
> Project Veritas Action Fund
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:56 AM, RuthAlice Anderson <
> ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> ACORN did great work organizing low income people on the downside of
>> power to have a voice in their communities. Most people in politics don’t
>> care about them. Most advocacy groups don’t care about them because they
>> are not a reliable voting bloc. ACORN’s focus was helping the poorest
>> people to organize around poverty issues like poor public services, no
>> storm drains, stop lights, predatory lending, and other issues that just
>> are under the radar for grassroots groups oriented toward the middle class.
>>
>> Project Veritas has no purpose other than producing false, defamatory
>> “sting” videos. ACORN’s purpose had nothing to do with underage
>> prostitution and we know that those videos were a vicious slander.
>>
>> I would stand with ACORN over Veritas any day of the week.
>>
>> RuthAlice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:27 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> And "RuthAlice" you'd like to attach your reputation to a group promoting
>> underage prostitution (hint:  ACORN)? It's your life.
>>
>> http://www.cc.com/video-clips/4j8aff/the-daily-show-with-jon
>> -stewart-the-audacity-of-hos
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 1:56 AM, RuthAlice Anderson <
>> ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> T <http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf>here are links to
>> all the investigations here
>> http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7780&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
>>
>> He showed video of himself presenting himself as a pimp on the video he
>> published, but on the unedited video, he said he was a lawyer. If you want
>> to attach your reputation to someone like him, it’s your life.
>>
>> RuthAlice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 10:44 PM, Mark Scarberry <
>> mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I had not heard an allegation that the ACORN videos were dubbed. Source?
>>
>> Mark Scarberry
>>
>>
>> _____________________________
>> From: RuthAlice Anderson <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>> To: law-election at UCI.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
>>
>>
>> People from ACORN were fired and resigned as well and those videos were
>> dubbed, edited and designed to deceive. The thing is, the long list of
>> malicious misrepresentation by O’Keefe is such that if he produced the NPR
>> Christmas Yule Log film, I would assume the log is styrofoam and the fire
>> is photoshopped.
>>
>> RuthAlice
>>
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 8:59 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If you elect not to review salient information concerning voter fraud,
>> like the Veritas evidence this week, then the ostrich position of seeing no
>> voter fraud is sensible, Professor Hasen.
>>
>> But since the White House and CNN are discussing our reports, maybe you
>> should review them?  Especially after Bob Creamer, longtime buddy of Obama,
>> has resigned from Democracy Partners and his co-conspirator, Scott Foval of
>> Americans United for Change were also pushed out.
>>
>> Seems like our reports illustrating Democratic operatives engaged in this
>> very pursuit is noteworthy and might merit your attention.
>>
>> Forward,
>>
>> Benjamin Barr
>> Counsel
>> Project Veritas Action Fund
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>> “Commit massive voter fraud.”
>>
>> No evidence whatsoever of that. There are serious questions about what’s
>> going on in Indiana, and I say let’s wait till we know all the facts.
>>
>> And voter registration fraud does not generally lead to fraudulently cast
>> votes. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87081
>>
>>
>> I always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and
>> this voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making
>> fundamentally honest arguments.
>>
>> And I’ll let others continue this with you if they see it as fruitful.
>>
>>
>> *From: *"JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:39 PM
>> *To: *"rkelner at cov.com" <rkelner at cov.com>
>> *Cc: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv <
>> law-election at uci.edu>
>> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Accepting the results of the election
>>
>> What is hideous and unprecedented is this concerted attempt by liberals
>> and Democrats to try to preclude a candidate from utilizing perfectly
>> appropriate and legal means to ensure the fairness our elections by asking
>> for a recount, if legally available under state law. This is particularly
>> chilling here in Indiana when our State Police have just uncovered
>> thousands of instances of voter registration fraud in 56 of our 92
>> counties that is obviously a precursor to massive voter fraud.
>>
>> Click here: “Statement from Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug
>> Carter Regarding Possible Voter Fraud ” from Indiana Stat
>> <https://local.nixle.com/alert/5757504/>
>>
>> This looks like a one two punch to me. Commit massive voter fraud and
>> then force a candidate to say in advance that he will accept the outcome on
>> election day.  This is a serious attack of the Rule of Law and an attempt
>> to subvert our elections.  Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 10/19/2016 11:15:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> rkelner at cov.com writes:
>>
>> Of course a presidential candidate can contest results in the
>> exceptionally rare case of a truly close election. But neither George W.
>> Bush nor Al Gore would ever have hesitated to say, prior to the election,
>> that they would respect the outcome of the election. That hideous
>> distinction is now uniquely owned by Donald Trump.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 11:08 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com
>> <JBoppjr at aol.com>>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com
>> <JBoppjr at aol.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> Some of those on this list serve may have taken note of this exchange:
>>
>> Chris Wallace: "Will you accept the result of this election?"
>> Donald Trump: "I will look at it at the time. ... I will keep you in
>> suspense."
>> Hillary Clinton: "That's horrifying."
>>
>> Let me say that I think that Clinton's reaction was as phony and as it
>> was absurd. Al Gore did not accept the results of the 2000 election. He
>> sued for a recount in Florida which was not resolved until early December
>> by a decision of the US Supreme Court. Only then, when no other legal
>> recourse was possible, did he accept the results of the election. This, of
>> course, was Gore's legal right to do. It would be ridiculous for Trump to
>> say in advance that he will accept the election day count, if it would be
>> appropriate to institute a recount.
>>
>> State laws provide legal remedies to contest election or ask for recounts
>> under certain circumstances. It is perfectly appropriate for a candidate to
>> use these if legally available. Jim Bopp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at de
>> partment-lists.uci.edu <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161021/f293b1ef/attachment.html>